In the following deployment of web app on ONE pc-based server,running linux,which can support the most amount of concurrent users as well as the shortest latency? 1 apache+mongrel 2 apache+mongrel_cluster 3 lighthttpd+mongrel 4 lighthttpd+mongrel_cluster 5 lighthttpd+fastcgi Thanks charlie
on 2006-05-22 09:19
on 2006-05-22 12:29
> In the following deployment of web app on ONE pc-based server,running > linux,which can support the most amount of concurrent users as well as > the shortest latency? Perhaps this will be a useless thing for me to say in response, but why not test each configuration yourself and post your results? I haven't personally seen such a comparison (though it's likely one exists) and it'd probably be useful for others. -- Michael D. http://www.mdaines.com
on 2006-05-22 12:39
> 1 apache+mongrel > 2 apache+mongrel_cluster > 3 lighthttpd+mongrel > 4 lighthttpd+mongrel_cluster > 5 lighthttpd+fastcgi Maybe not exactly that, but the TextDrive weblog has at least one post that might be helpful: http://weblog.textdrive.com/article/219/what-about... mongrel-for-rails-applications -- Michael D. http://www.mdaines.com
on 2006-05-22 18:56
On 5/21/06, charlie <email@example.com> wrote: > In the following deployment of web app on ONE pc-based server,running > linux,which can support the most amount of concurrent users as well as > the shortest latency? > 1 apache+mongrel > 2 apache+mongrel_cluster > 3 lighthttpd+mongrel > 4 lighthttpd+mongrel_cluster > 5 lighthttpd+fastcgi Well, mongrel and mogrel_cluster are not mutually exclusive. If you are using mongrel, you will most definitely want to use mongrel_cluster (really all it does it allow you to work with multiple instances of mongrel easily. So it is just a wrapper that simplifies use of mongrel in a production situation). I personally have no clue which is faster. But the ease of setup and use of mongrel with mongrel_cluster is a tremendous advantage ... added with the ease of configuring lighty I would be tempted to go that route. But as lighty has suffered some stagnation recently it would concern me in the long term. People on the mongrel mailing list have recently mentioned apache 2.2 and mod_proxy so I need to try that route next. Austin
on 2006-05-22 19:03
Out of interest, which platfom you intend to run all this?
on 2006-05-22 19:31
I have tried all this configurations, but did not do any perfomance mesurements yet. The most easy to setup up (on debian sarge) with a real webserver at front for caching, compressing and virtual hosting was apache+mongrel_cluster.
on 2006-05-22 22:15
I have typically gotten the fastest with lighttpd + fastcgi... but only *slightly* higher than other configs. Since mongrel + anything is much easier to configure and manage, I just use that on *nix. But you *need* to do your own tests.